The plant quarantine safeguard regulations in 7 CFR part 352 relieve restrictions for certain plants, plant products, plant pests, soil, and other products and articles that are classified as prohibited or restricted in other regulations in title 7, chapter III. Such plant products include fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States for: (1) A temporary stay where unloading or landing is not intended; (2) unloading or landing for transshipment and exportation; (3) unloading or landing for transportation and exportation; or (4) unloading and entry at a port other than the port of arrival. Fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States under these circumstances are subject to inspection and must be handled in accordance with conditions assigned under the safeguard regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests.

The regulations in § 352.30 address the movement into or through the United States of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States en route to foreign countries. Those regulations have allowed untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to enter the United States at the ports of Nogales, AZ, or Brownsville, Eagle Pass, El Paso, Hidalgo, or Laredo, TX, and be moved, under certain conditions, by truck or railcar to seaports at Brownsville and Galveston, TX, for export by water to another country.

In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2002 (67 FR 13103-13104, Docket No. 01-073-1), we proposed to amend the regulations by removing Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico. In the same document, we also proposed to remove Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port for the exportation by water of such fruit.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending May 20, 2002. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule amends the plant quarantine safeguard regulations by removing Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit transiting the United States for export to another country. We are also removing Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port for the exportation by water of shipments of untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit. We are taking these actions because neither port has been used for these purposes in over 20 years. These actions will update the regulations so that they accurately reflect the ports used for the importation and exportation by water of untreated citrus from Mexico.

Since the ports of Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, have not been used for any shipments of untreated citrus from Mexico in over 20 years, this action will have no economic effect on any entity. Small entities located at or around the ports of Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, will not be affected by this rule for the same reason that no economic entity of any size will be affected.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This final rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This rule is issued under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Order) [7 CFR Part 1209]. The Order is authorized under the Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 6101-6112).

The Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.

In addition, this rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have retroactive effect and will not affect or preempt any other State or Federal law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

The Act allows producers and importers to file a written petition with USDA if they believe that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, is not established in accordance with law. In any petition, the person may request a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Afterwards, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision. If the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ's ruling, the petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will issue a final decision on behalf of the Department. If the petitioner disagrees with the Judicial Officer's decision, the petitioner may file, within 20 days, an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the district where the petitioner resides or conducts business.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ], AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities that would be affected by this rule. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $5 million. Under these definitions, the majority of producers and importers that would be affected by this rule would be considered small entities. Producers and importers of less than 500,000 pounds or less of mushrooms for the fresh market are exempt from the Order.

According to the Council, there are approximately 137 non-exempt producers and 135 non-exempt importers who are eligible to serve on the Council.

The overall impact would be favorable for producers and importers because the producers and importers would have more equitable representation on the Council.

The addition of one importer position on the Council would mean two additional nominees. However, this rule would also reduce the number of producer nominees from 18 to 16. Therefore, there is no increase in overall burden, but only a change in the type of respondent under the Order.

As such, with regard to the information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ], there are no new requirements contained in this rule. The information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0505-0001. This rule, however, does add a new category of respondents—importers. The estimated burden for importer nominee information is 0.50 hours per response with two responses once every three years. This is the same burden that applies to producer nominees. Since producer nominees are reduced by this rule from 18 to 16, the estimated total annual burden on respondents associated with nominee background forms is 2.7 hours. The estimated cost of providing nomination information by eighteen persons eligible to be nominated to serve as members on the Council remains at $27.00 or $1.50 per person.

In terms of alternatives to this rule, this action reflects the volume thresholds and procedures that have been established previously under the provisions of the Order for reallocation of Council membership.

There are no federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Under the Order, the Council administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, and information designed to strengthen the fresh mushroom's position in the market place and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for fresh mushrooms. The program is financed by an assessment of 0.21 cents per pound on any person who produces or imports over 500,000 pounds of mushrooms for the fresh market annually. The Order specifies that handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting the producer assessment to the Council, reporting their handling of mushrooms, and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Council on mushrooms imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs Service.

The Order established a Council of up to nine members. For the purposes of establishing the Council, the United States was divided into four producer regions.

In addition, §§ 1209.30(a) and (c) of the Order state that importers shall be represented by a single, separate region (referred to as Region 5) when imports, on average (2 years), equal or exceed 35 million pounds of mushrooms annually. Currently, there is no Region 5.

Section 1209.30(d) of the Order provides that at least every five years, the Council should review changes in the geographic distribution of mushroom production volume throughout the United States and import volume, using the average annual mushroom production and imports over the preceding four years. Based on the review, the Council would recommend reapportionment of the regions, or modification of the number of members from such regions, or both.

Section 1209.30(e) provides that each producer region that produces, on average, at least 35 million pounds of mushrooms annually is entitled to one member. Further, each producer region is entitled to an additional member for each 50 million pounds of annual production, on average, in excess of the initial 35 million pounds required to qualify for representation, until the nine seats on the Council are filled. Under the Order, “on average” reflects a rolling average of production or imports during the last two fiscal years.

The average production of pounds by producer region for the years 2000 and 2001 is 74.4 million pounds for Region 1; 297.2 million pounds for Region 2; 121.6 million pounds for Region 3, and 107.8 million pounds for Region 4. The average number of pounds imported for the years 2000 and 2001 is 39.3 million.

As a result, the Council recommended the following changes in Council membership:

Therefore, pursuant to § 1209.30, a new § 1209.230 is added to the regulations under the Order to change the composition of the Council. Nominations based upon the changes made in this rule would be received for the term of office that begins on January 1, 2003.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule should be in place as soon as possible so that the nomination process may be conducted taking into account the changes that appear in this rule. The new term of office begins on January 1, 2003. In addition and for the same reasons, a 30-day period is provided for interested persons to comment on this rule.

The FAA has received reports indicating that, on certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes, the captain's indicated airspeed sensor and the captain's display unit may give inconsistent airspeed data to the flightcrew. Investigation of two incidents has revealed that, during production, the circuit breaker wire for the captain's pitot heater was connected to the 28-volt alternating current (AC) power supply bus, instead of the 115-volt AC standby power supply bus. The 28-volt power supply bus does not supply sufficient electrical power to heat the captain's pitot probe and keep it free of ice. This condition, if not corrected, could cause ice blockage of the captain's pitot probe, leading to the flightcrew receiving incorrect airspeed data, which could result in loss of control of the airplane if the flightcrew fails to recognize that the data are incorrect.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-24A1150, dated April 11, 2002, which describes procedures for measuring the electrical voltage at the circuit breaker for the captain's pitot heater to determine if the pitot heater is connected to the correct power supply bus, and performing corrective action, if necessary. The corrective action involves connecting the subject circuit breaker wire to the 115-volt AC standby power supply bus, performing a test to ensure that the pitot heater system operates correctly, and repeating the measurement of the electrical voltage at the circuit breaker for the captain's pitot heater. If the test fails or the electrical voltage is still incorrect, the service bulletin specifies to troubleshoot the problem and repeat the corrective actions. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent ice from blocking the pitot tube that provides airspeed data to the captain, which could lead to the flightcrew receiving incorrect airspeed data and result in loss of control of the airplane if the flightcrew fails to recognize that the data are incorrect. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

While the service bulletin specifies that no further action is necessary if the voltage measurement of the circuit breaker for the captain's pitot heater is 115 volts AC, paragraph (a)(1) of this AD states that, if the measurement is between 100 and 122 volts AC, no further action is required by this AD. The range of 100 to 122 volts AC specified in this AD accounts for normal variances that may be encountered during the voltage measurement.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g. , reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-127-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. The FOCA reports that, because of a manufacturing defect, certain bolts on the main landing gear (MLG) assembly may be defective. The problem is caused by an improper cadmium process applied to the high strength steel part, which can cause hydrogen embrittlement and subsequent failure of the bolt.

The defective bolts were initially installed on MLG assemblies that have a serial number beginning with the letters “AM”. Each bolt in the defective lot incorporates the letters “AT” and a number of 299 or lower.

If not corrected, such failure could lead to MLG collapse during landing.

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 1, 2002 (67 FR 9420). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the left and right main landing gear (MLG) assemblies for bolts with a serial number (S/N) beginning with the letters “AT” and numbers 299 or lower and replace each bolt with a bolt that does not have a S/N with both the letters “AT” and a number of 299 or lower.

The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or on our determination of the cost to the public.

After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection and replacement:

This document establishes Class D Airspace at Stillwater Municipal Airport, Stillwater, OK. Establishing an Air Traffic Control Tower at Stillwater Municipal Airport, Stillwater, OK, has made this rule necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft operating in the vicinity of Stillwater Municipal Airport, Stillwater, OK.

Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9J dated August 1, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and therefore is issuing it as a direct final rule. A substantial number of previous opportunities provided to the public to comment on substantially identical actions have resulted in negligible adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document will be published in the Federal Register . This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. After considering the adverse or negative comment, we may publish another direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action is needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2001-ASW-18.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Further, the FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments and only involves an established body of technical regulations that require frequent and routine amendments to keep them operationally current. Therefore, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since this rule involves routine matters that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the anticipated impact is so minimal.

This document establishes Class E airspace at Scott Field Airport, Mangum, OK. The development of an area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP), to Scott Field Airport, Mangum, OK, has made this rule necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9J, dated August 1, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR § 71.1.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and therefore is issuing it as a direct final rule. A substantial number of previous opportunities provided to the public to comment on substantially identical actions have resulted in negligible adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document will be published in the Federal Register . This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. After considering the adverse or negative comment, we may publish another direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action is needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2002-ASW-1.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Further, the FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments and only involves an established body of technical regulations that require frequent and routine amendments to keep them operationally current. Therefore, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since this rule involves routine matters that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the anticipated impact is so minimal.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises the Class E airspace at Springhill, LA. The development of a NDB SIAP, at Springhill Airport, Springhill, LA has made this rule necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface for IFR operations to Springhill Airport, Springhill, LA.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9J, dated August 1, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and therefore is issuing it as a direct final rule. A substantial number of previous opportunities provided to the public to comment on substantially identical actions have resulted in negligible adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document will be published in the Federal Register . This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. After considering the adverse or negative comment, we may publish another direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted to triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action is needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2002-ASW-2.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects of the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Further, the FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments and only involves an established body of technical regulations that require frequent and routine amendments to keep them operationally current. Therefore, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have significant economic impact; positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since this rule involves routine matters will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Presidential Proclamation 7208 of July 7, 1999, as modified by Presidential Proclamation 7214 of July 30, 1999, imposed a temporary tariff-rate quota (TRQ) effective July 22, 1999, on lamb meat imports provided for in subheadings 0204.10.00, 0204.22.20, 0204.23.20, 0204.30.00, 0204.42.20, and 0204.43.20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), in order to facilitate the domestic industry's adjustment to import competition. Under Presidential Proclamation 7214, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) was authorized to administer the TRQ on the lamb meat.

Pursuant to Presidential Proclamations 7208 and 7214 and the implementing regulations of the USTR (15 CFR part 2014), the United States Customs Service issued § 132.16 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 132.16) which required that lamb meat subject to the TRQ be covered under certain circumstances by an export certificate in order to obtain the in-quota rate of duty. Also, an appropriate reference to the export-certificate requirement of § 132.16 was included in the appendix to part 163, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 163, Appendix), which lists those records that are required for the entry of imported merchandise. ( See Customs interim and final rules in this matter published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1999, and December 13, 2000, respectively (64 FR 67482 and 65 FR 77816).)

The TRQ imposed on the lamb meat has now been eliminated by Presidential Proclamation 7502 of November 14, 2001. With the elimination of this TRQ, there is therefore no longer any need for the regulation requiring that an export certificate cover the lamb meat in order to entitle the lamb meat to the in-quota rate of duty under the TRQ. Accordingly, § 132.16 is being removed from the Customs Regulations as well as the reference to § 132.16 in the Appendix to Part 163.

Because these amendments merely reflect Presidential Proclamation 7502 of November 14, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and public procedure are unnecessary, and for the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. These amendments do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866.

The principal author of this document was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used we mean the EPA.

EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's opacity rule. IDEM submitted the revised opacity regulation to the EPA on October 21, 1999, as a requested revision to its SIP. The revisions address applicable requirements concerning the start-up and shutdown of utility boilers, the terminology used in discussing averaging periods, time periods for temporary exemptions, alternative opacity limits (AOLs), and conflicts between visible emission readings and COM data. The boiler start-up and shutdown revisions satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA policy on such provisions. Other rule revisions aid the enforcement of the opacity rules.

The State's submission revises several sections of Indiana's opacity rule, 326 IAC Article 5. The revisions involve limited exemptions from opacity limits during start-up and shutdown of utility boilers equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), conflicts between COM data and visible emission readings, clarification of averaging periods, temporary AOLs for non-boiler sources, and exemptions for sources with consolidated Title V permit limits.

The major new component of these revisions allows certain utility boilers to obtain limited exemptions from opacity limits during start-up and shutdown periods in their federally enforceable operating permits. The exemption cannot be longer and will generally be shorter than an upper bound duration established in the rule, 326 IAC 5-1-3(e). This provision is for power plants using coal-fired boilers and ESPs.

The current SIP version states that if there is a conflict between opacity readings recorded by a COM and those taken by a human observer, the COM data will prevail. EPA requested this rule be revised to make enforcement easier. Indiana revised the rule, 326 IAC 5-1-4(b), to state that data from either a COM or a human observer may be used to show a violation of opacity limits. The basis for this change is that there are certain instances in which opacity readings from an observer may be more accurate than those from a COM. For example, sulfur in a high-temperature gas stream exists in a gaseous state inside a smokestack and would not register on a COM. Once the gas stream comes in contact with the atmosphere, however, chemical reactions and cooling occur, causing visible emissions which can be seen by an observer.

The current version of this rule, 326 IAC 5-1-2, states that the limits are not to be exceeded “in 24 consecutive readings” with readings taken every 15 seconds. The revised rule states that the limits are not to be exceeded in “any one 6-minute averaging period.” The limits themselves are unchanged. Indiana made a similar clarification of time averaging periods for temporary AOLs. Under 326 IAC 5-1-3(a) and (b), Indiana may provide temporary AOLs to certain sources for start-up, shutdown, and ash removal. Both of these revisions improve the ability to enforce the rule by making it clearer and more consistent with the opacity test method. The test method (40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 9) calls for opacity readings to be taken by an observer every 15 seconds, and for these readings to be averaged on a 6-minute basis.

New provisions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(c) authorize Indiana to grant temporary AOLs to non-boiler sources. These sources now may apply for a short-term opacity AOL for start-up, shutdown, and ash removal situations. IDEM will submit any temporary AOLs to the EPA as site-specific SIP revisions. EPA will review them for compliance with Clean Air Act requirements and EPA policy. This rule revision does not directly affect any SIP emissions limits.

Indiana's rule had provided an exemption from opacity limits for any source with a specific opacity limit in a Title V permit. The rule, 326 IAC 5-1-1, allowed sources to consolidate multiple limits into a single limit in the Title V permit. This is known as “streamlining.” The EPA had informed Indiana that the exemption was inappropriate because it had impermissibly suggested that Title V permits could create SIP exemptions. As a result, Indiana removed the exemption from 326 IAC 5-1-1.

The EPA used its September 20, 1999, memorandum entitled “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Start-up, and Shutdown” to evaluate the exemptions provisions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e). To be approved, the provisions must meet the seven requirements in this memorandum. The requirements are:

1. The revision must be limited to specific, narrowly-defined source categories using specific control strategies;

2. Use of the control strategy for this source category must be technically infeasible during start-up or shutdown periods;

3. The frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown mode must be minimized;

4. As part of its justification of the SIP revision, the state should analyze the potential worst-case emissions that could occur during start-up and shutdown;

5. All possible steps must be taken to minimize the impact of emissions during start-up and shutdown on ambient air quality;

6. At all times, the facility must be operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions; and

7. The owner or operator's actions during start-up and shutdown periods must be documented by properly signed, concurrent operating logs, or other relevant evidence.

Indiana has met all seven requirements. Language in Indiana's rules meets requirements three, five, six, and seven. An October 10, 2001, letter from IDEM states that the AOL will only be given to 22 power plants using coal-fired boilers with ESPs. This satisfies the first requirement. IDEM supplied technical documentation on the infeasibility of ESPs during start-up and shutdown to meet requirement two. Indiana provided modeling analysis of the potential worst case emissions to meet the fourth requirement, as discussed in section IV below.

In addition to the supporting material for the exemptions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e), Indiana provided support for its other opacity revisions. Revised language in 326 IAC 5-1-2 clarifies the averaging period for opacity level readings. The averaging period is now “any one (1) six (6) minute averaging period.” The former limit of “twenty-four (24) consecutive readings” (readings are taken every 15 seconds) was revised to aid enforcement of the opacity rules. Indiana also submitted revisions to 326 IAC 5-1-3 (a), and (b) which provide sources short-term temporary AOLs for start-up, shutdown, and ash blowing. An alternative 60 percent opacity limit section (a) will now apply for up to “two (2) six (6) minute averaging periods” in any twenty-four hour period. Previously, the limit applied for “twelve (12) continuous minutes.” Section (b) similarly changes a “six (6) continuous minutes” to “one (1) six (6) minute” averaging period. The 326 IAC 5-1-3 (a) and (b) revisions also aid rule enforcement.

Indiana also revised 326 IAC 5-1-3 (c) to include non-boiler sources located outside of Lake County with similar AOLs to those of 326 IAC 5-1-3 (a) and (b). Language in 326 IAC 5-1-1 allowing an opacity limits exemption for any source with a specific opacity limit in a Title V permit was removed. This exemption was removed because it had impermissibly suggested that Title V permits could create SIP exemptions.

Indiana held two public hearings on the opacity rule revisions, giving interested parties an opportunity to comment. It held the first public hearing on December 3, 1997 and the second on June 3, 1998. Transcripts of the public hearing are included in the submittal. Representatives from electric utilities, a university, and a cement company made comments at the hearings. These comments were generally supportive of the rule revisions except for two commenters who expressed concern about 326 IAC 5-1-4(b). This section addresses conflicts between visual opacity readings and those taken with a COM. Indiana further revised this section in response to the comments. Section 5-1-4(b) now states that either visual or COM readings may be used to support an enforcement action. The source may also use COM readings and other relevant information to refute the State's findings.

Indiana submitted a modeling analysis aimed at assessing the worst-case impact of the limited exemption from opacity limits in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e). This modeling analysis addresses the fourth requirement of EPA's September 20, 1999 policy. Of the 22 eligible facilities, IDEM modeled PSI Energy's power plant in Edwardsport because it has the shortest stacks (183 feet) and the most significant impact from building downwash. A conservative emissions rate was calculated by estimating uncontrolled emissions under full-load operating conditions for a conservative eight-hour start-up period. IDEM developed a conservative estimate of background concentrations in the area of the Edwardsport plant. It showed that application of this background value to the other relevant power plants (none of which are in the Lake County non-attainment area) would provide a similar degree of conservatism.

Indiana used five years of meteorological data to model estimated concentrations of particles of nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (PM-10). The Edwardsport modeling results show an ambient PM-10 concentration (including background) of 98.6 μg/m 3 , well below the 24-hour average PM-10 standard of 150 μg/m 3 . Thus, IDEM has demonstrated that the start-up and shutdown exemption in 326 IAC 5-1-3 is not expected to cause a violation of the PM-10 air quality standards.

The EPA further examined whether air quality problems could arise from multiple sources operating in start-up or shutdown mode simultaneously. With one exception, the relevant power plants are isolated from each other. The one exception is for two facilities in Warrick County. Because the two facilities are about 3 kilometers apart, and because these facilities have significantly higher stacks than the Edwardsport facility, EPA is satisfied that simultaneous operation in start-up or shutdown mode at these two facilities will not cause air quality problems. In addition, because operation in start-up or shutdown mode (particularly eight hours of such operation) is infrequent, simultaneous operation in these modes at more than one source is unlikely. Consequently, EPA believes that granting the exemption requested by Indiana will not jeopardize continued attainment of the air quality standards.

The Indiana Electric Utility Air Work Group submitted a comment supporting the (visual versus monitor) opacity readings revision. EPA acknowledges this comment. EPA has also received ten comments on the proposed rulemaking for Indiana's opacity rule from a Wyoming citizen. The following summarizes the comments and gives the EPA's response:

Comment 1: EPA should not approve an exemption from Indiana's opacity limits because the limits are already quite lax. Sources located in non-attainment areas are subject to a 30 percent opacity limit (except for facilities located in Lake County which are subject to a 20 percent opacity limit), with an exemption allowed for a cumulative total of up to fifteen minutes in a 6-hour period during which opacity cannot exceed 60 percent, and sources elsewhere are subject to a 40 percent opacity limit.

Response 1: Although the commenter considers Indiana's opacity limits lax, in fact Indiana has demonstrated to EPA that at least some of these sources cannot meet these limits during start-up and shutdown. The infeasibility of meeting the limits led Indiana to pursue an exemption from its normal opacity limits during these periods in accordance with EPA policy. First, the 30 percent opacity limit applies to areas that were previously designated non-attainment for total suspended particulate matter. Only Lake County is designated non-attainment for the current, PM-10 based, particulate matter standard.

More importantly, the interpretation of the 60 percent opacity rules as an “exemption” is incorrect. This comment refers to limits in 326 IAC 5-1-2(1)(B) and 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(C) which state that opacity shall not exceed 60 percent for a cumulative total of 15 minutes in a 6-hour period. These 60 percent limits are in addition to the general 6-minute average opacity limits in 326 IAC 5-1-2 (40 percent, 30 percent, or 20 percent, depending on the location of the source), and are meant to prevent repeated, short-duration high-opacity emissions which may not last long enough to cause a violation of a 6-minute average opacity limit. There is no language in 326 IAC 5-1-2(1)(B) or (2)(C) which exempts sources from other applicable opacity limits. Therefore, it would be a violation of the rule if opacity were to exceed either the appropriate 6-minute average opacity limit or the 60 percent 15-minute cumulative limit.

Comment 2: While 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) does require the submittal of a source-specific SIP revision to the EPA for these alternative opacity exemptions, EPA's approval of the procedures for alternative opacity limits in 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) could be construed as a guaranteed approval of the SIP revision as long as the source and the State comply with the requirements of this State rule in crafting alternative opacity limits, especially considering that Indiana's rule does not require the source-specific SIP revision to be approved by EPA before the source can be exempt from SIP opacity requirements. Thus, this provision must not be approved as part of the SIP. Instead, the EPA should simply review and approve or disapprove, as appropriate, each source-specific SIP revision as submitted.

Response 2: We disagree with this interpretation of the State rule. EPA approval of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) does not guarantee EPA approval of future SIP revisions requesting alternative opacity limits under this subsection. 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) merely lays out the conditions and procedures under which Indiana would accept such revisions. If such a revision is approved by Indiana, the State must submit it to the EPA as a site-specific SIP revision. The EPA will review any such submittals on their own merits under Clean Air Act requirements and take appropriate action.

Alternative opacity limits under Section 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) do not become effective unless and until the EPA approves them as SIP revisions. 326 IAC 5-1-7 states that: “Exemptions given or provisions granted by the commissioner in accordance with section * * * 3(d) * * * of this rule shall be submitted to the U.S. EPA as a SIP revision and shall not become effective until approved as a SIP revision by the U.S. EPA.”

Comment 3: EPA's proposed approval of these revisions is in violation of the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's September 20, 1999 policy. First, it is apparent from the language of 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) that Indiana has been allowing, without EPA approval, exemptions from the SIP's opacity requirements in operating permits (state operating permits as well as Part 70 operating permits). Such exemptions are illegal, as operating permits cannot allow a source to violate the SIP and such permits cannot be used to revise a SIP unilaterally. The commenter urges EPA to investigate Indiana's implementation of its permitting program to determine if the state is allowing illegal revisions to other requirements of the SIP as well as the SIP opacity limits through the issuance of operating permits. In addition, EPA's approval of the provision without discussion of the underlying change in specific SIP requirements is clearly improper.

Response 3: The 22 facilities eligible for start-up/shutdown opacity limit exemptions under 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) currently have opacity limit exemptions in their State operating permits. However, since these State operating permits are not federally enforceable, they do not create SIP exemptions. Indiana cannot issue any Title V permits to these 22 facilities which contain start-up/shutdown exemptions until 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) is incorporated into the SIP by federal rulemaking action.

If EPA approves this provision, the State is bound by the provisions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) to establish limits which, among other things, “limit the duration and extent of excess emissions to the greatest degree practicable,” and “minimize the duration and extent of excess emissions.” Indiana has further indicated, in an October 10, 2001 letter, that it understands that EPA approval of 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) will not make the pre-existing opacity exemptions in the State permits federally enforceable.

Comment 4: Indiana's proposed SIP revision does not comply with the requirements of EPA's September 20, 1999 policy. EPA's policy states that start-ups and shutdowns are part of the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the planning, design, and implementation of operating procedures for the process and control equipment. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will eliminate violations of emissions limitations during such periods.

Response 4: The policy continues: “For some source categories, given the types of control technologies available, there may exist short periods of emissions during start-up and shutdown when, despite the best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures, the otherwise applicable emissions limitation cannot be met.” The policy also states, “it may be appropriate, in consultation with EPA, to create narrowly-tailored SIP revisions that take these technological limitations into account and state that the otherwise applicable emissions limitations do not apply during narrowly defined start-up and shutdown periods.”

The start-up/shutdown exemptions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) only apply to coal-fired utility boilers equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). The rule also permits similar exemptions for boilers equipped with baghouses at sources with a preexisting permit with such an exemption. However, no boilers equipped with baghouses have such a permit, so no boilers with baghouses are eligible for the exemption. This is a specific source category with a certain type of control device that Indiana has determined is technically infeasible to operate in low temperature exhaust streams. Thus, approval of this SIP revision is appropriate under EPA policy.

Comment 5: EPA's policy does allow for narrowly-tailored exemptions from SIP limits for some source categories, “given the types of control technologies available,” that cannot meet SIP limits despite best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures. Regarding this SIP revision, Indiana has claimed those coal-fired utility boilers equipped with ESPs cannot meet the existing state opacity limits, which already are quite lenient and already allow greater levels of opacity during periods of start-up and shutdown. Although EPA has stated in its SIP approval that these exemptions only apply to coal-fired boilers using ESPs, the State rule does not limit the exemption to coal-fired boilers, and it does not limit the exemption to facilities using only ESPs for control. In fact, the exemptions are even allowed for facilities equipped with baghouses and such facilities should have no problems meeting Indiana's lax opacity limits, unless such facilities are bypassing the control equipment or not maintaining and operating the source in accordance with good air pollution practices for minimizing emissions. Thus, the State's rule is not limited to specific, narrowly-defined source categories.

Response 5: 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) states that if a source has different start-up and shutdown conditions from those in subsections (a) or (b) in a valid operating permit on the effective date of this rule (November 8, 1998), the source will be eligible for the 5-1-3(e) start-up/shutdown exemption. In an October 10, 2001, letter, Indiana states that the only facilities having such permits as of November 8, 1998, are a group of 22 power plants using coal-fired boilers equipped with ESPs. Other sources, such as facilities equipped with baghouses, are not eligible for this exemption under the explicit language in 5-1-3(e). The EPA has determined that coal-fired utility boilers equipped with an electrostatic precipitator meet the policy requirement for a narrowly-defined source category.

Comment 6: Indiana did not provide any justification to show that the applicable opacity limits cannot be met for sources other than coal-fired boilers equipped with ESPs, nor did Indiana provide adequate justification to show that the existing opacity requirements could not be met, given the types of control technologies available, at coal-fired boilers equipped with ESPs. Further, the State did not adequately show that the use of ESPs during start-up and shutdown was technically infeasible.

Response 6: The start-up/shutdown exemptions apply only to select facilities with coal-fired utility boilers controlled with ESPs, so there is no need to justify the technical infeasibility for other sources. Indiana's October 10, 2001, letter provides technical justification from Cinergy, Hoosier Energy, NIPSCO, and Indianapolis Power & Light. This technical justification is applicable for all 22 facilities seeking start-up/shutdown exemptions. Energizing an ESP before the flue gas temperature is above the sulfuric acid dew point can result in damage to the equipment. Condensation of sulfuric acid in the ESP may cause corrosion. It may also condense on the dust in the unit causing hard deposits which reduce the PM-10 collection efficiency of the ESP. During the ignition of a coal-fired boiler, there is a risk of a fire or an explosion if the ESP is energized. Normal sparking can ignite any combustible gases in the unit.

Comment 7: The State must be required to show that its minimum criteria for exemptions in 326 IAC 5-1-3(e)(2) will minimize the frequency and duration of excess emissions during start-up and shutdown to the maximum extent practicable. The State rule does not require the facility to, at all times, be operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions. The State rule also does not require the source to demonstrate that all possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of emissions during start-up and shutdown on air quality. In addition, the State rule does not require the owner or operator's action during start-up and shutdown to be properly documented.

Response 7: In fact, language in the State rule does satisfy the September 20, 1999 policy requirement. 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) states that each facility must submit “documentation including, but not limited to, historical opacity information during periods of start-up and shutdown and other pertinent information and proposed permit conditions that limit the duration and extent of excess emissions to the greatest practicable extent. The commissioner shall incorporate permit conditions that are necessary for safe and proper operation of equipment and minimize the duration and extent of excess emissions. Such conditions shall require the source to keep records of times of start-ups, shutdowns, and ash removals and may be more stringent than the operating permit conditions in effect as of the effective date of this rule.” The rule was effective on November 8, 1998. In the October 10, 2001 letter, Indiana adds, “we anticipate tightening the allowable time periods and requirements for these limitations as we develop the Title V permits for these sources, based on historical information about emissions during these periods.” This will further minimize the frequency and duration of excess emissions.

Comment 8: Start-up/shutdown conditions under 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) “* * * appear to be allowed for facilities located in non-attainment areas.”

Response 8: This is not the case. The first sentence of 326 IAC 5-1-3(e) explicitly states that “ . . . this section applies to sources existing on the effective date of this rule located in counties other than Lake County.” As previously stated, the only PM-10 non-attainment area in Indiana is located in Lake County.

Comment 9: The State's modeling analysis does not adequately demonstrate that the SIP relaxation will not result in a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The State claimed that this exemption would apply to 22 facilities, but modeled only one facility. The State's modeling analysis did not address whether the facility modeled had the highest emission rate. The analysis also assumed that the topography, meteorological conditions, distance from stack to fence line, background concentrations, and locations of other nearby sources were identical to the source modeled. The State should have modeled every source with an exemption from the SIP opacity limits with the specific conditions applicable to each facility to truly examine worst case ambient impacts. Thus, this analysis is fatally flawed and is not sufficient to demonstrate that the SIP revision won't allow for a violation of the NAAQS.

Response 9: Indiana used a worst-case approach to assess whether the exemptions its rules allow would cause violations of the NAAQS near any of the eligible facilities. Indiana sought to model a scenario that would show impacts equal to or greater than the impacts that would be expected at any of the 22 facilities eligible for these exemptions. This approach seeks to avoid unnecessary and overly burdensome analyses whose results (i.e., attainment) can be deduced from modeling a single worst-case scenario. The question, then, is whether Indiana has in fact modeled a worst-case scenario.

A critical element of the modeled scenario is stack height. Indiana modeled the facility with the shortest stack of the 22 eligible facilities. Indeed, the modeled stack is short enough to have plume downwash, which causes much greater impacts than would occur otherwise. EPA expects this factor to have more effect on plant impacts than the emission differences among these facilities, so that start-up and shutdown at the modeled facility should cause higher concentrations than they would at the other 21 eligible facilities.

The commenter identifies several other parameters that can affect plant impacts. However, none of these parameters is likely to affect plant impacts sufficiently to alter which plant has the worst-case impact. Meteorological variations from day to day obviously create substantial day to day concentration variations, but the question here is whether different locations in Indiana could be expected to have significantly different ensembles of meteorological conditions. EPA believes that the climatology is sufficiently similar across Indiana that an analysis for the one location analyzed by the State is sufficient. Distance from stack to plant fence line can be important for low-level releases, but the peak impacts from the sources involved are generally more than a kilometer from the source, i.e., well beyond plant fence line. Therefore, differences in fence line distances will likely not affect peak concentrations. Terrain can significantly affect concentrations, particularly if the terrain rises above the top of the stack. However, the stacks of the sources involved are in most cases very tall. They are well above both plant grounds and the highest nearby hilltops. EPA believes that Indiana has modeled the plant with stacks that are not just the shortest but in fact the least elevation above nearby terrain.

The commenter further expresses concern about variations in background concentrations. EPA examined monitoring data throughout the State. Sources in Lake County are not eligible for the exemptions at issue, and so background concentrations there are not relevant. In the rest of the State, the measured background concentrations are comparable to the background concentrations that Indiana used. Whereas Lake County has a complicated mix of sources, making it difficult to assess background concentrations, the rest of the State has fewer sources, such that the “background” impact of other sources can be reasonably represented with available monitoring data. As a result, EPA concludes that the addition of the plant impacts modeled by Indiana to concentrations elsewhere in the State, other than Lake County, would not yield violations of the air quality standards. More generally, EPA concludes that Indiana has modeled a worst-case scenario. Indiana's modeling showed a 24-hour concentration for this scenario of 98.6 μg/m 3 , well below the air quality standard of 150 μg/m 3 . EPA therefore concludes that Indiana's modeling suffices to demonstrate that the exemptions which Indiana's rule authorizes would not allow violations of air quality standards.

Comment 10: The State has not demonstrated that the SIP relaxation will not adversely impact the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments.

Response 10: Under 40 CFR 51.166 (a)(2), a demonstration that a SIP revision will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable PSD increments is required, “[i]f a State Implementation Plan revision would result in increased air quality deterioration over any baseline concentration.” Increment violation can only occur if a source or sources increase actual emissions above baseline levels. EPA views the emissions associated with start-up and shutdown as emissions that were unavoidably present during the baseline period. While SIP relaxations ordinary allow an increase in emissions, this SIP revision will not yield any increase in emissions above baseline levels and some sources will actually require a decrease in emissions. Consequently, this SIP revision will not consume any PSD increment and a PSD increment consumption analysis is not required.

After considering the comments received, EPA continues to believe that Indiana's rule revisions are acceptable, as proposed in the November 30, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 59757). Therefore, the EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's opacity rule. The revised regulation address provisions concerning the start-up and shutdown of operations, terminology used in discussing averaging periods, time periods for temporary exemptions, alternative opacity limits, and conflicts between visible readings and COM data. This rule will be effective on August 15, 2002.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Total suspended particulate (TSP) was replaced as the indicator for the particulate matter ambient standard by a new indicator, particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less in size (PM 10 ). In response, Tennessee amended its rules and regulations which dealt with particulate matter to assure compliance with the particulate NAAQS throughout Tennessee.

On September 1, 1993, the State of Tennessee, through the TDEC, submitted a revision to rule 1200-3-2-.01 General Definitions, adding definitions for (hhh) “PM 10 emissions” and (jjj) “Particulate Matter Emissions.” These definitions comply with EPA's regulations for control strategies to attain and maintain the NAAQS for particulate matter and for permits to construct pursuant to parts C and D of the CAA.

On April 9, 1998, the State of Tennessee, through the TDEC, submitted revisions to Chapter 1200-3-5 Visible Emission Regulations. Rules 1200-3-5-.09 Kraft Mill Recovery Furnaces and 1200-3-5-.11 Soda Recovery Boilers are being combined into 1200-3-5-.09, with 1200-3-5-.11 being repealed. A revision to paragraph (3) of rule 1200-3-5-.09, which changes a reference to Chapter 1200-3-20 Limits On Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Start-Ups, And Shutdowns from rule .07 to .06, is not consistent with the federally approved SIP. The revision to the codification of Chapter 1200-3-20 has not been submitted by the State to EPA. Therefore, no action is being taken by EPA on the revision to paragraph (3) of rule 1200-3-5-.09.

EPA is approving the aforementioned revisions to the Tennessee SIP because they are consistent with the CAA and EPA policy. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 16, 2002, without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 15, 2002.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 16, 2002, and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2)).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On May 7, 2002, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

On May 22, 2001, EPA finalized limited approval and limited disapproval of a previous version of this rule which was adopted on October 10, 1995.

Rule 74.29 controls the emissions of VOCs from the clean-up of soils contaminated with gasoline, jet fuel, or diesel fuel. The TSD has more information about this rule.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 74.29 must fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability and RACT requirements include the following: Issue Relating to VOC Regulation, Cut Points, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the “Blue Book”), U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988.

We believe this rule is consistent with relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. In particular, the revisions to this rule adequately address the deficiencies identified in our May 22, 2001 limited disapproval by removing director's discretion formally contained in section C.4 of this rule. The revisions also contain other minor rule improvements and clarifications.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval and we therefore are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by August 15, 2002, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect, and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 16, 2002. This action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP and will terminate all sanctions and sanction clocks associated with our May 22, 2001 limited disapproval.

NO X and VOC help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of this local agency NO X rule.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves the state rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

EPA is approving the Puerto Rico plan, and the elements therein, as submitted on February 20, 2001, for the control of air emissions from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills. When EPA developed the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (subpart WWW) for MSW landfills on March 12, 1996, it concurrently promulgated Emission Guidelines (subpart Cc) to control air emissions from existing MSW landfills. The EPA amended these rules on June 16, 1998 and February 24, 1999.

The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) developed a plan, as required by section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), to adopt the Emission Guidelines into its body of regulations, and EPA is acting today to approve that plan.

On February 20, 2001, Puerto Rico submitted a plan for implementing and enforcing EPA's emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills. The plan contained several elements including: (1) A demonstration of Puerto Rico's legal authority to implement the section 111(d) MSW landfill plan; (2) identification of a mechanism to enforce the emission guidelines; (3) a list of known MSW landfills including their nonmethane organic compound emissions rate estimates; (4) a regulation requiring the installation of emission collection and control equipment which is no less stringent than the requirements in subpart Cc; (5) a description of the process Puerto Rico will use to review and approve site-specific gas collection and control design plans; (6) compliance schedules for each source that require final compliance no later than the dates required in EPA's November 8, 1999 Federal 111(d) plan (64 FR 60703), to which Puerto Rico is currently subject; (7) requirements for sources to test, monitor, keep records, and report to Puerto Rico; (8) records of the public hearings on the Commonwealth's Plan; and (9) a provision for the Commonwealth's submittal to EPA of annual reports on Puerto Rico's progress in the enforcement of its plan.

There were no comments received on EPA's proposed rulemaking (67 FR 17321, April 10, 2002) regarding the Puerto Rico plan. The 30-day public comment period on EPA's proposed approval ended on May 10, 2002.

For reasons described in this action and in EPA's proposal, EPA is approving Puerto Rico's section 111(d) MSW landfill plan. For further details, the reader is referred to the proposal and the Technical Support Document.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

This action will not impose any collection information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , other than those previously approved and assigned OMB control number 2060-0220. For additional information concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR 60.35c. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA has concluded that this rule does not have federalism implications. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do no apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because such businesses have already been subject to the federal plan, which mirrors this rule. Therefore, because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing the rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

We conclude that Georgia's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Georgia Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Georgia has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Georgia, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Georgia subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Georgia has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Georgia is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.

EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes.

If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

Georgia initially received Final authorization on August 7, 1984, effective August 21, 1984 (49 FR 31417), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on July 7, 1986, effective September 18, 1986 (51 FR 24549), July 28, 1988, effective September 26, 1988 (53 FR 28383), July 24, 1990, effective September 24, 1990 (55 FR 30000), February 12, 1991, effective April 15, 1991 (56 FR 5656), May 11, 1992, effective July 10, 1992 (57 FR 20055), November 25, 1992, effective January 25, 1993 (57 FR 55466), February 26, 1993, effective April 27, 1993 (58 FR 11539), November 16, 1993, effective January 18, 1994 (58 FR 60388), April 26, 1994, effective June 27, 1994 (59 FR 21664), May 10, 1995, effective July 10, 1995 (60 FR 24790), August 30, 1995, effective October 30, 1995 (60 FR 45069), March 7, 1996, effective May 6, 1996 (61 FR 9108), September 18, 1998, effective November 17, 1998 (63 FR 49852), October 14, 1999, effective December 13, 1999 (64 FR 55629), and November 28, 2000, effective March 30, 2001 (66 FR 8090).

On April 28, 2000, Georgia submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Georgia's revision consists of provisions promulgated July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, otherwise known as RCRA Cluster IX. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Georgia's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Georgia Final authorization for the following program changes:

There are no State requirements in this program revision considered to be more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.

Georgia will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Georgia is not yet authorized.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart L for this authorization of Georgia's program until a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective September 16, 2002.

This document corrects two inadvertent omissions relating to the rules governing the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz bands. These corrections conform the Commission's published rules to the texts of the final rule documents in which the rules were adopted.

First, § 25.136(a) of the Commission's rules is corrected to include aircraft cockpit communications in addition to aircraft Cabin Communications. In the Big LEO Order , the Commission adopted several modifications of the Commission's rules, including clarifying that the provisions of § 25.136(a) include cockpit communications as well as aircraft Cabin Communications systems. See 59 FR 53294. This modification to § 25.136(a), although specifically ordered in the text of the Big LEO Order , was inadvertently omitted in the amended rules published in the Federal Register and sent for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Commission subsequently amended § 25.136(a) to govern also earth station networks in the 2 GHz MSS band. See 65 FR 59140. In doing so, the failure to modify § 25.136(a) as ordered in the Big LEO Order was inadvertently carried over to the 2 GHz MSS Order . This error is now corrected by revising § 25.136(a) to include aircraft cockpit communications as well as aircraft Cabin Communications, as originally ordered in the text of the Big LEO Order .

Second, the title of § 25.143 of the Commission's rules is corrected to include 2 GHz MSS systems in addition to 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems. The Commission ordered 2 GHz MSS systems to comply with § 25.143 as part of the 2 GHz MSS Order and amended § 25.143 to reflect this fact. These amendments were included in the final rules that were adopted in the 2 GHz MSS Order and published in the Federal Register . See 65 FR 59143. Although § 25.143 included 2 GHz MSS systems in the title when published in the 2 GHz MSS Order and the Federal Register , the ordering language in the Federal Register inadvertently failed to include the necessary instructions to amend the title of § 25.143 to include 2 GHz MSS systems. See id . This omission is corrected by revising the title of § 25.143 to include 2 GHz MSS systems in addition to 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems.

Pursuant to § 0.261 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.261, §§ 25.136(a) and 25.143 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 25.136(a) and 25.143, are corrected as set forth further.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-205, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-260, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-259, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-147, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-294, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-292, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-243, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-256, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-258, adopted June 26, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's regulation, 49 CFR part 544, the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements: (1) Those issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States; (2) those issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and (3) rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.

Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.

Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.

In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M. Best publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each state.

In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:

(1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and

(2) The insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.

In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Business Travel News.

Under part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report by October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.

On March 27, 2002, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update the list of insurers in Appendices A, B, and C required to file reports (67 FR 14667). Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on October 24, 2001 (66 FR 53731). Based on the 1999 calendar year data market shares from A.M. Best, we proposed to remove American Financial Group from Appendix A and to add Great American P & C Group and Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group to Appendix A.

Each of the 20 insurers listed in Appendix A is required to file a report before October 25, 2002, setting forth the information required by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 1999 calendar year. As long as these 20 insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 1999, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 1999 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we proposed to remove Concord Group Insurance Companies (Vermont) from Appendix B.

The eight insurers listed in Appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 1999 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed by October 25, 2002, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as these eight insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Based on information in Automotive Fleet Magazine and Business Travel News for 1999, NHTSA proposed to remove A T & T Automotive Services, Inc. from Appendix C and to add Ford Rent-A-Car System to Appendix C. Each of the 17 companies (including franchisees and licensees) listed in Appendix C would be required to file reports for calendar year 1999 no later than October 25, 2002, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as those 17 companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

In response to the NPRM, the agency received no comments. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the proposed changes to Appendices A, B, and C.

Passenger motor vehicle insurers listed in the appendices can forward their theft loss reports to the agency in several ways:

a. Mail: Carlita Ballard or Deborah Mazyck, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, NPS-32, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590;

b. E-mail: cballard@nhtsa.dot.gov or dmazyck@nhtsa.dot.gov;

c. Fax: (202) 493-2290; or Theft loss reports may also be submitted to the docket electronically by:

d. Logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “ES Submit” or “Help” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.

This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and has determined that the action is not Asignificant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.

NHTSA does not believe that this rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2001 (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi ), the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $88,500 for any insurer added to Appendix A, $35,420 for any insurer added to Appendix B, and $10,219 for any insurer added to Appendix C. In this final rule, for Appendix A, the agency removed one company and added two companies; for Appendix B, the agency removed one company and for Appendix C, the agency removed one company and added one company. The agency estimates that the net effect of this final rule would be $53,080 to insurers as a group.

Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-4949.

The information collection requirements in this final rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”) and approved for use through August 31, 2003, and the agency will seek to extend the approval afterwards.

The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies proposed for Appendices A, B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency proposes to exempt all “self insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity.

This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this final rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect, and it does not preempt any State law. 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909, and section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

• Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:

a. Mail: Henrietta L. Spinner, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, NPS-32, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590;

b. E-mail: hspinner@nhtsa.dot.gov; or

c. Fax: (202) 493-2290.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2002 TAC allocation of sablefish assigned to trawl gear for the Central Regulatory Area was established as 1,086 metric tons (mt) by an emergency rule implementing 2002 harvest specifications and associated management measures for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the allocation of the sablefish TAC assigned to trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that further catches of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).